Committee Chair: Senator Grote (D-LA)
Committee Members: Senator Potts (D-CT), Senator Joseph (D-ID), Senator Drennan (R-FL), Senator Exnicios (R-)
The Committee: Senator Exnicios, Senator Drennan, Senator Potts, Senator Grote and Senator Joseph Date of Decision: March 4, 2008
Committee Reports and Bills
S-3: To ban gun use in the country to prevent people from using them against others. (Senators Grote and Nunez) Decision: Not Passed Reasons: We considered many pros and cons while looking at this bill. Pros
Too many people are dying/injured because of guns.
In London guns have been outlawed (for the most part - hunting exceptions, etc.) and as a result the death rate has decreased.
Less guns = Less deaths
Stopping deaths from occurring is more important than things like hunting Cons
It is necessary for guns to be illegal in order to protect themselves.
For example: If a criminal breaks into an old woman's home and tries to hurt her, she should have a way to defend herself.
Although a law similar to this one is in effect in London, we must take into consideration that our society is very different than that of Europe. Guns were never a common thing in London like they are present day in the U.S. London is not a large farming country like America and are not as economically dependent on things like farming.
In addition, this bill goes against the food chain - Man should be able to hunt prey in order to survive.
Also, from an economic perspective, guns play a large role in our economy because there are numerous sporting goods stores, companies that assemble the guns, craftsmen who personally engrave guns, etc. So, getting rid of guns would lead to the unemployment of many American citizens. Due to the fact that America is already suffering because of the large amount of people who are unemployed, adding to that large sum of people would not be beneficial for our economy.
We also did not agree the part of the bill that stopped gun control in the U.S.
Overall, this was a very controversial bill and it was not an easy decision because we, the committee, have the best interest of the American people in mind. Even though this bill has a good principle and good intentions, there are far too many loose ends that enable us to decide in favor of passing this bill.
S-4: To allow contraceptives to be more accessible (Senator Drumm)
Decision: Passed
Reasons: We decided to pass this bill with a few exceptions.
Exceptions:
However, we decided that there should be no age limit to who receives the contraceptives as long as a doctor has prescribed them to the consumer. In addition, we disagreed that pharmacists should be required to distribute contraceptives unconditionally because we feel that a doctor should approve it beforehand. This is in case someone is on alternative medications that may in some way harm the consumer if mixed together. We also disagreed that the participant should receive a year supply of the contraceptives with every health insurance payment because we feel that it is an unnecessary measure and would put too much strain on the insurance companies and not all people who have health insurance need birth control. Lastly, we thought that the funding for this bill should come from an alternative source and not abortion agencies. This was controversial as well between the republicans and the democrats because naturally the republicans did not want the government to give money to the abortion clinics. However, the democrats want money to go to the abortion clinics to ensure that they are performing safe operations, etc.
Overall, we came to a group consensus that insurance companies should cover contraceptives. Pros
The republicans supported this bill on the theory that: <
The Senate Committee on Constitutional Rights
Committee Chair: Senator Grote (D-LA)
Committee Members: Senator Potts (D-CT), Senator Joseph (D-ID), Senator Drennan (R-FL), Senator Exnicios (R-)
The Committee: Senator Exnicios, Senator Drennan, Senator Potts, Senator Grote and Senator Joseph Date of Decision: March 4, 2008
Committee Reports and Bills
S-3: To ban gun use in the country to prevent people from using them against others. (Senators Grote and Nunez)
Decision: Not Passed
Reasons: We considered many pros and cons while looking at this bill.
Pros
Too many people are dying/injured because of guns.
In London guns have been outlawed (for the most part - hunting exceptions, etc.) and as a result the death rate has decreased.
Less guns = Less deaths
Stopping deaths from occurring is more important than things like hunting
Cons
It is necessary for guns to be illegal in order to protect themselves.
For example: If a criminal breaks into an old woman's home and tries to hurt her, she should have a way to defend herself.
Although a law similar to this one is in effect in London, we must take into consideration that our society is very different than that of Europe. Guns were never a common thing in London like they are present day in the U.S. London is not a large farming country like America and are not as economically dependent on things like farming.
In addition, this bill goes against the food chain - Man should be able to hunt prey in order to survive.
Also, from an economic perspective, guns play a large role in our economy because there are numerous sporting goods stores, companies that assemble the guns, craftsmen who personally engrave guns, etc. So, getting rid of guns would lead to the unemployment of many American citizens. Due to the fact that America is already suffering because of the large amount of people who are unemployed, adding to that large sum of people would not be beneficial for our economy.
We also did not agree the part of the bill that stopped gun control in the U.S.
Overall, this was a very controversial bill and it was not an easy decision because we, the committee, have the best interest of the American people in mind. Even though this bill has a good principle and good intentions, there are far too many loose ends that enable us to decide in favor of passing this bill.
S-4: To allow contraceptives to be more accessible (Senator Drumm)
Decision: Passed
Reasons: We decided to pass this bill with a few exceptions.
Exceptions:
However, we decided that there should be no age limit to who receives the contraceptives as long as a doctor has prescribed them to the consumer. In addition, we disagreed that pharmacists should be required to distribute contraceptives unconditionally because we feel that a doctor should approve it beforehand. This is in case someone is on alternative medications that may in some way harm the consumer if mixed together. We also disagreed that the participant should receive a year supply of the contraceptives with every health insurance payment because we feel that it is an unnecessary measure and would put too much strain on the insurance companies and not all people who have health insurance need birth control. Lastly, we thought that the funding for this bill should come from an alternative source and not abortion agencies. This was controversial as well between the republicans and the democrats because naturally the republicans did not want the government to give money to the abortion clinics. However, the democrats want money to go to the abortion clinics to ensure that they are performing safe operations, etc.
Overall, we came to a group consensus that insurance companies should cover contraceptives.
Pros
The republicans supported this bill on the theory that: <